Cases of denial of presumption of presumption because the registration of recovery did not meet the requirements;

Since the date of receipt of an application for the previous registration and the receipt number are unclear, registration for recovery which fails to meet the requirements for the restoration registration as prescribed by the Act, may not be recognized.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 80 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant 1 and 12 others

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na203 delivered on January 24, 1979

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer under defendant 1 was null and void on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that the real estate was registered without the cause of the registration of title transfer under the name of the defendant 1, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the registration of title transfer under the name of the defendant 1 is void on the ground that the registration of title transfer under the name of the defendant 1 was made without the cause.

However, as alleged by Defendant 1, even if it is assumed that the real estate was purchased by the Dong and completed the registration of ownership transfer, but the original register was destroyed and then the registration was completed by restoring the previous registration, Defendant 1 cannot be presumed to be the owner of this real estate, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot be presumed to be the owner of this real estate. Furthermore, according to each copy of the register No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 3, it is stated that the date of receipt of the application for the previous registration and the receipt number are unclear, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the restoration registration of this real estate did not meet the requirements for the restoration registration as provided by the law is more presumed. Meanwhile, if it is acknowledged that the above real estate was owned by the above clan 1 and 3, unless there is any counter-proof evidence, the judgment of the court below should continue to have been registered under the name of the title trustee even at the time of the establishment of the original register of forest land in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the restoration of rights and obligations.

Justices Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)